How Much Proof is Enough?

The Higgs boson explains why particles have mass -- and in turn why we exist. Without the boson, the universe would have no physical matter, only energy.

The cosmological implications are hotly debated. Can God fit in a scientific story of creation?

The answer is "no" for Lawrence M. Krauss, an Arizona State University theoretical physicist. He argued in Newsweek that the Higgs boson discovery "posits a new story of our creation" independent of religious belief.

"With enough data, physics would make God obsolete, he said. "If we can describe the laws of nature back to the beginning of time without any supernatural shenanigans, it becomes clear that you don't need God."

What will be enough evidence for science to prove that there is no god?.

I had stated in another conversation about this that no matter what science proves, the religious will just say that it is still some divine intervention. God allowed us to see this etc. etc. instead of simply showing himself. Groan!.

"Alternative medicine guru Deepak Chopra said in a YouTube video that the boson hints at a divine interconnectedness of all things.

"It only strengthens the notion that the universe comes out of a nothingness which is everything," he said."

At the end of the day, even a slap in the face does not wake people up. They ask us to prove the lack of existence of god, we give it to them in so many instances and yet they still choose to be delusional simply based on feelings rather than facts.

As usual with Huffington Post news stories, I always encourage you to read the comments as this is where most of the action happens.

Replies to This Discussion

It's not a matter of science proving there is no god. That's like trying to prove there is no Santa. Instead we know there is no Santa because the idea of a magical man making gifts at the north pole is just stupid.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. I don't think that the religious will ever give up their losing battle, therefore I do not think scientists or atheists (or both) should waste their time trying to somehow disprove the existence of god, although the science, as Dr. Krauss rightly says, doesn't point to a creator whatsoever, rather it shows that we do not need a creator to explain the universe. The religious can then try and change their arguments to fit with the science, but we know that it is extremely far-fetched. Moreover, they're also defeated by the Razor of Occam; they're making things too complicated.

Presumably the most useful deductions or predictions are the ones that are true.

I can't offhand think of a useful but false deduction, although I wouldn't rule it out. I suppose you might consider approximate predictions to be technically false, but useful. For example, weather predictions that are only off by a few degrees.